[cdi-dev] [Vote] for CDI-527 / PR 271 allow proxying of classes with non-private final methods

[Antoine Sabot-Durand]

Hi Guys,

Some EG members (like David Blevins) asked to have until the ned of the
week-end to vote here.
I find interesting to have the more possible input but as the rules were to
end the vote tonight, I wanted to be sure that nobody has any objection for
closing the vote on sunday 11:59pm CET.

Regards,

Antoine

Le ven. 12 févr. 2016 à 17:23, Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de> a écrit :

> Sure, that might probably be a viable way to do it.
>
> Oki, here are the two use cases which we need to solve:
>
> 1.)
> @Produces
> @ApplicationScoped
> public SomeWeirdThirdPartyClassWithFinalMethods createIt() {return …};
>
> 2.)
> @ApplicationSCoped
> public class MySubclass extends SomeWeirdThirdPartyClassWithFinalMethods {}
>
> Any other use case?
>
> Can you please elaborate how your idea will look like? Just a few ideas so
> we can get it running.
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> PS: Again: I’m NOT interested to get my approach in. All I’m interested in
> is a _solution_ for this real world problem. But there was simply no
> alternative proposed so far…
>
>
>
> > Am 12.02.2016 um 17:12 schrieb Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>:
> >
> > -1
> >
> > The problem seems real, but proposed approach doesn't sit right with
> > me. I think it would be better to follow the EJB approach, and add a
> > way to be able to declare a method as "not a business method" (a
> > business method is also a thing in CDI IIRC).
> >
> > For example, e.g. using beans.xml and an annotation. This then allows
> > the spec to consistently treat this public method as not a business
> > method.
> >
> > On 9 February 2016 at 16:36, Antoine Sabot-Durand
> > <antoine at sabot-durand.net> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> There have been a lot of discussion around CDI-527 in the last weeks:
> >> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-527
> >>
> >> Mark proposed a PR:
> >> https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/271
> >>
> >> But we don't agree on adding this feature to the spec.
> >> This vote is to decide if we should add this feature at the spec level
> now,
> >> or not.
> >> Should we vote this feature down, that won't mean it will be completely
> >> dropped: it could be implemented as non portable feature in both Spec or
> >> even be included as experimental feature in the spec (in annexes) as
> >> describe in the PR comments
> >> Vote starts now, only vote from EG members are binding (but you can give
> >> your opinion if not part of the EG) and will last 72 hours.
> >>
> >> You vote with the following values:
> >> +1 : I'm favorable for adding this feature in the spec
> >> -1 : I'm against adding this feature in the spec
> >> 0 : I don't care
> >>
> >> Thank you for your attention and your vote.
> >>
> >> Antoine Sabot-Durand
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> cdi-dev mailing list
> >> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >>
> >> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
> code
> >> under the Apache License, Version 2
> >> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas
> >> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
> intellectual
> >> property rights inherent in such information.
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdi-dev mailing list
> > cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >
> > Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
> code under the Apache License, Version 2 (
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas
> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
> intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20160212/323a90e2/attachment.html